Share this story

We don't often pay attention to entry-level product launches, but Sony's latest laptop offerings have piqued our interest. There's no question that once you're talking about spending $1,000 or more on a high-end Ultrabook, there are many respectable options: you can get a nice, high-resolution screen and good build quality from Lenovo's IdeaPad Yoga and X1 Carbon, Dell's XPS 12, or Asus' Zenbook Prime series. However, as we found the last time we took a look at entry-level laptops, it's hard to find features like this at or below $600.

That’s one of the things that Sony wants to change with its new mainstream laptop lineup, dubbed the VAIO Fit series. You won’t mistake these for premium machines, but they do raise the bar in one important respect: a Sony rep told us that none of the systems would include a 1366×768 display. The 14-inch models use a 1600×900 resolution, while the 15-inch models bump this to 1920×1080.

The Fit brand is intended to eventually clean up Sony’s confusing laptop lineup, which currently consists of the E-series (low-end), the S-series (mid-end), and the T-series (Ultrabooks), joining the existing Tap and Duo brands in an effort to make the lineup less obtuse.

That being said, Sony still offers a bewildering range of options across the four laptops being introduced today. The Fit E laptops come in 14- and 15-inch versions, which begin at $549.99 and $579.99, respectively. The base price includes an all-plastic chassis and the screens mentioned earlier (touch is a $100 add-on) as well as a dual-core Pentium 2117U CPU (upgradeable to a dual-core Core i3, i5, or i7), integrated graphics (upgradeable to an Nvidia GeForce 740M with either 1GB or 2GB of video RAM), 4GB of RAM (upgradeable to 6GB or 8GB), a 500GB 5400RPM hard drive (which can be switched out for larger and/or hybrid hard drives, but not SSDs), a DVD burner (upgradeable to a Blu-ray burner), and Windows 8 (or Windows 8 Pro). A fully loaded Fit 14E can cost as much as $1,279.99, or $1,309.99 for the Fit 15E.

The 14- and 15-inch Fit laptops (with no E) are a bit more expensive (they start at $649.99 and $699.99), but usually have better upgrade options and are a bit faster to begin with. The base price for the Fit 14 and Fit 14 includes a plastic-and-aluminum chassis, the non-touch screens (touch still costs $100 more), a dual-core Core i3 CPU (upgradeable to a Core i5 or i7), integrated graphics (upgradeable to a 1GB or 2GB GeForce GT 735M), 4GB of RAM (with 8GB and 12GB options), 500GB hybrid hard drives (upgradeable to 750GB or 1TB hybrid drives or 256GB and 512GB SSDs), a DVD burner (upgradeable to a Blu-ray burner), and Windows 8 (or Windows 8 Pro). The SSD options drive the maximum price of these laptops up to $2,159.99 and $2,209.99, respectively.

All four systems include additional niceties like backlit keyboards (with a number pad in the 15-inch models); NFC, single-band Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth, front-facing webcams, and software-enhanced sound courtesy of Sony’s ClearAudio+ technology.

While the Fit line is supposed to simplify Sony’s product lineup, the need to offer multiple options for each and every thing (as well as multiple colors, depending on which laptop you’re buying and whether or not it includes a touchscreen) doesn’t end up simplifying much at all. Fit, as a name, is preferable to a series of random letters, but the experience of buying one of these laptops probably won’t differ much from the situation as it currently stands.

Hands-on

Sony sent us a touch-equipped version of the Fit 15 so we could clock some extended hands-on time with the hardware in addition to the brief demos we were given in the company’s New York office. You won’t mistake these for the premium Ultrabooks we often review around these parts, but for the money they aren't bad.

The first and most obvious improvement is the screen, which as we mentioned is a 1920×1080 panel rather than the 1366×768 that we all love to hate. The quality of the panel itself is still what you’d expect in a low-end or midrange laptop; it’s a TN panel, which means that colors are a little washed out and the viewing angles (vertical especially) are poor compared to the IPS displays you’ll get in most Ultrabooks or tablets. The screen does, however, get nice and bright.

The touch functionality itself is accurate. Whatever Sony is coating the screen with does a fair job of repelling those pesky fingerprints and smudges, but it does make the surface of the screen feel slightly sticky, and I found that it was more difficult to drag my finger around the screen than it is on most touchscreens.

Enlarge/ Opening the lid tilts the bottom of the laptop toward you slightly to aid in typing. Small rubber feet on the bottom of the lid protect it (and your desk or table) from scuffs and other damage.

Andrew Cunningham

Enlarge/ The laptops offer a fair number of ports. On the Fit 15, you get gigabit Ethernet, HDMI, two USB 3.0 ports, one USB 2.0 port, a headphone jack, a card reader, and a Kensington lock slot. Compare the thickness to Toshiba's Kirabook Ultrabook (top).

Andrew Cunningham

As for the build quality—well, you can only expect so much at this price point. The all-plastic Fit E models feel fairly well put-together and rigid given their material, but they are susceptible to a fair bit of creaking and flexing, especially in the lids. This is also true of the more expensive Fit models (which add an aluminum lid and palm rest to a plastic bottom and keyboard area). You also shouldn’t expect them to be as thin and light as Ultrabooks, given their screen sizes and the extra thickness needed to accommodate the optical drive.

Next, we arrive at the keyboard and trackpad, another area where entry-level laptops could use a lot of help. The actual keyboard layout is good—there are no shrunken, oddly placed keys here—but there’s very little key travel. This is especially disappointing given that, unlike in some Ultrabooks, these computers aren’t trying to shave off precious millimeters in an attempt to nab the “thinnest laptop” crown. There’s plenty of room for satisfactory key travel, but the Fit delivers one of the shallower laptop keyboards I’ve used in recent memory. The keyboard’s backlight is nice and bright, but (at least in the silver model we tested) it’s very uneven.

The computer’s trackpad is of the now-standard buttonless, clickable variety, and we happily have no problems in particular to report with it. Pinch-to-zoom, two-fingered scrolling, and the Windows 8 trackpad gestures all worked predictably and without issue, and we had no issues with palm rejection while we were being dissatisfied with the keyboard.

Enlarge/ The Fit keyboards have a nice layout, but the key travel is very shallow and unsatisfying.

Finally, we arrive at the insides of the computer. These PCs all use the same dual-core Ivy Bridge Ultrabook chips that we’ve seen in numerous machines over the last year (our review unit also came with the integrated HD Graphics 4000), and at this point we don’t have much to say that hasn't already been said—performance is excellent for general usage (though slowed down a bit by the use of spinning hard drives) and lighter or older games, but users with more demanding workloads may want to consider a PC with a quad-core chip (or one of the dedicated graphics upgrades). The sole caveat here is that Haswell, Intel’s next-generation CPU architecture, is due out next month, and while it’s going to take a while to filter down to this price point, it’s always worth taking a moment to consider a new PC purchase when the latest-and-greatest chips are just weeks away.

In the end, we consider any step forward in entry-level PCs to be a positive development, and Sony’s push away from the dreaded 1366×768 in the new Fit laptops is something we hope to see from every PC OEM as they begin to unveil their summer and fall lineups. That said, the Fit and Fit E laptops are not immune to the weaknesses of other laptops in this price range: the screens’ viewing angles are poor, the keyboard is dissatisfying, and in general the build quality, size, and weight are less impressive than that of many Ultrabooks. Given that Ultrabooks can cost two-to-three times what these laptops do, however, the Fit laptops are still worth a look if you’re interested in a solid PC that won’t entirely drain your bank account.

Share this story

Andrew Cunningham
Andrew wrote and edited tech news and reviews at Ars Technica from 2012 to 2017, where he still occasionally freelances; he is currently a lead editor at Wirecutter. He also records a weekly book podcast called Overdue. Twitter@AndrewWrites

So if Sony can offer a usable 650$ Laptop with a decent screen how about Apple providing a 1000$ 15" Macbook that you can actually use? Apple's laptop prices are ridiculous. I am not saying you don't get value for your money but the entry prices for a usable ( i.e not 13" micro) notebook are simply laughable.

I can only hope that 1366x768 is going to die a quick death. Unlike many other computer specs (lookin' at you camera megapixals), this is a situation where more is almost universally better, especially for a marginal increase in cost. Once a few manufactures 1080 the default, others will have no recourse but to follow, or be left behind in the pixel race.

So if Sony can offer a usable 650$ Laptop with a decent screen how about Apple providing a 1000$ 15" Macbook that you can actually use? Apple's laptop prices are ridiculous. I am not saying you don't get value for your money but the entry prices for a usable ( i.e not 13" micro) notebook are simply laughable.

Odd that the higher end laptops go with the lower end graphics. Unless of course the 740M in the Fit E are the ones which use DDR3, and not the 740M with GDDR5 (which has double the shadrers of the DDR3 740M), in which case the only difference might be clock speed between the 735M and 740M DDR3. Though I'd assume the 740M is clocked higher (unless it's the GDDR5 740M, in which case it might be clocked lower but still faster because it has more CUDA cores), so I guess I would still call that odd.

Sigh. At least, for every confusing branding scheme that Intel, NVIDIA or AMD throw at us, there's someone willing to put together a comparison chart on Wikipedia.

So if Sony can offer a usable 650$ Laptop with a decent screen how about Apple providing a 1000$ 15" Macbook that you can actually use? Apple's laptop prices are ridiculous. I am not saying you don't get value for your money but the entry prices for a usable ( i.e not 13" micro) notebook are simply laughable.

True, but I think his point was that Apple does not deign to cater to entry-level buyers. That is a legitimate accusation against Apple for detractors, while fans will rationalize it with talk about not watering down the brand by sacrificing quality. How you view probably depends on your pre-conceived biases, but it is worthy of discussion.

So if Sony can offer a usable 650$ Laptop with a decent screen how about Apple providing a 1000$ 15" Macbook that you can actually use? Apple's laptop prices are ridiculous. I am not saying you don't get value for your money but the entry prices for a usable ( i.e not 13" micro) notebook are simply laughable.

Apple has never competed in the ultra-low-margin entry level PC market (which is likely a large part of why they're now the dominate PC OEM). The other PC OEMs have shown that you can't make a good laptop for ~$600 (you have to make many, many compromises... it might be usable, but usable is not necessarily good).

Also, why do you hate 13" so much? After having used a 13" MBA for a few years now (having come from 15", 17", and desktops, and still using a 13"), I definitely don't notice the difference while using it (while I do notice the difference when carrying it with me everywhere I go every day).

So if Sony can offer a usable 650$ Laptop with a decent screen how about Apple providing a 1000$ 15" Macbook that you can actually use? Apple's laptop prices are ridiculous. I am not saying you don't get value for your money but the entry prices for a usable ( i.e not 13" micro) notebook are simply laughable.

True, but I think his point was that Apple does not deign to cater to entry-level buyers. That is a legitimate accusation against Apple for detractors, while fans will rationalize it with talk about not watering down the brand by sacrificing quality. How you view probably depends on your pre-conceived biases, but it is worthy of discussion.

Is it, though? Apple isn't trying to go for the low-end. They certainly could introduce a crappy Mac product, much like say BMW introduces something worse than the 1 Series. They could become the Honda Accord of computers. But do people really wake up and want a Honda Accord or a $650 computer? They're building a brand, and that's hard to do when all you do is cater to price-sensitive buyers, who will easily switch to the next manufacturer that out-prices or out-specs you on equivalent hardware.

So if Sony can offer a usable 650$ Laptop with a decent screen how about Apple providing a 1000$ 15" Macbook that you can actually use? Apple's laptop prices are ridiculous. I am not saying you don't get value for your money but the entry prices for a usable ( i.e not 13" micro) notebook are simply laughable.

As I said, I don't argue with the value. But that doesn't help you if you are forced to put almost 2 grand into the smallest available 15" notebook. Some people don't need the high end processors they force you to buy for example. A lot of people would also be happy with a less great screen.

If you are forced or wanting to use OSX you have no option but to get broke or work with a 13" toy. And even those are expensive. I am not arguing with the availability of the high value options. But choice in price is good. Even if you like to pay 2 Grand for a notebook that doesn't mean others need or want the same thing.

Essentially Apple could get a much higher marketshare if they would be willing to forgo some of the profit and I am pretty sure their insistance on only occupying the high end market will come back to byte them in the ass sometimes.

As I said, I don't argue with the value. But that doesn't help you if you are forced to put almost 2 grand into the smallest available 15" notebook. Some people don't need the high end processors they force you to buy for example. A lot of people would also be happy with a less great screen.

I agree that the 15" MBP is a terrible value when compared to the 13" MBP/MBA/rMBP. Not sure why Apple hasn't fixed or changed the pricing there.

This is really not a great aspect ratio for productivity/reading/etc..

I would like to see more displays like on on the Google Pixel:2560 x 1700, 3:2 aspect. That is a very nice productivity oriented aspect ratio.

I used to agree about 16:9, but it is nice for opening two windows side-by-side (Aero snap) on limited-resolution screens. For example, you can have two 800x900 windows on a 1600x900 screen, which is good enough to view most web pages without horizontal scrolling (although some pages need more horizontal pixels).

However, once you reach a certain number of horizontal pixels, more vertical pixels become more useful.

Having a numpad on a laptop and consequently forcing your hands to sit off center from your screen is a design flaw, not a nicety.

Pfft, says you.

If there wasn't a NumPad on the Dell Precision M4600 I purchased, I wouldn't have gotten it. Hell, that's the biggest reason I didn't purchase the Lenovo W520. No NumPad for CAD work is a massive, massive pain.

Some people appreciate NumPads. Some don't. But it's not a design flaw by any stretch of the imagination.

As I said, I don't argue with the value. But that doesn't help you if you are forced to put almost 2 grand into the smallest available 15" notebook. Some people don't need the high end processors they force you to buy for example. A lot of people would also be happy with a less great screen.

I agree that the 15" MBP is a terrible value when compared to the 13" MBP/MBA/rMBP. Not sure why Apple hasn't fixed or changed the pricing there.

"The sole caveat here is that Haswell, Intel’s next-generation CPU architecture, is due out next month..."

Apple's due for a product refresh soon. I'd bet good money on this being their new chipset.

This is really not a great aspect ratio for productivity/reading/etc..

I agree!16:9 is great for videos, but for the vast majority of other uses I prefer 16:10.

It's even worse on tablets though. 16:9 feels very misplaced on a tablet (it's just plain awkward in portrait orientation), and for them I'd even prefer 4:3 over 16:9.

For me, things are quite different: when I'm working as a writer/editor I spend a lot of time with two documents side-by-side on my screen -- when I got a 16:9 screen in my home office to replace a 4:3 screen, it was as if a new world opened up.

This is really not a great aspect ratio for productivity/reading/etc..

I agree!16:9 is great for videos, but for the vast majority of other uses I prefer 16:10.

It's even worse on tablets though. 16:9 feels very misplaced on a tablet (it's just plain awkward in portrait orientation), and for them I'd even prefer 4:3 over 16:9.

For me, things are quite different: when I'm working as a writer/editor I spend a lot of time with two documents side-by-side on my screen -- when I got a 16:9 screen in my home office to replace a 4:3 screen, it was as if a new world opened up.

For a desktop (and probably also laptop) system I also prefer 16:9 over 4:3. However, I personally find 16:10 to be even better. Preferences do vary though, and admittedly those extra vertical pixels could in some cases matter less when you're viewing things side-by-side....

The VAIO Duo 11's keyboard seems very similar (if slightly more compact) to these. I'd say the description is also probably pretty adequate. The keyboard on my VAIO took some getting used to. The lighting is effective but uneven. However, after some practice I can still type pretty effectively on it. It pales in comparison to other keyboards, though (keeping in mind that I'm a fan of mechanical keyboards and use them both at work and home). And it certainly is functional. It's not missing anything that I really desire, as far as features go.

Can someone explain the hate for 1366x768? Is it a technical issue? I have a 1366x768 laptop, and I don't have any cause to revile it. I also don't recall 1280x800 being particularly disliked.

It's a very low resolution, and manufacturers have been increasingly been putting them on physically large panels (think my Thinkpad Edge with a 15" 1366x768 resolution, compared with my older Dell Inspiron 8600 with a 15" 1680x1050 resolution). That resolution is nonstandard as far as media consumption goes, so scaling isn't perfect, and is low enough that you can't fit much on your screen.

I've been looking for a 15" 1080p laptop and they hit the price point nicely. Let's face it, most of us don't need the fastest processor for a laptop. I'm not doing video editing, so if it can play HD video smoothly, it should be able to handle everything else I throw at it. Too bad about the off-center keyboard, that's a trade-off I'm not willing to live with.

Can someone explain the hate for 1366x768? Is it a technical issue? I have a 1366x768 laptop, and I don't have any cause to revile it. I also don't recall 1280x800 being particularly disliked.

It's passable on rather small screens (think 11 or smaller), but it's just silly when you get 13, 15, or (I really hope there aren't any) 17". When phones are being released with about the same resolution to far superior (to say nothing of tablets that around double it), it's just silly that 1366x768 is still being pushed. The cost of increasing the resolution is really rather small (just a few $ more), but PC OEMs like cutting corners with the display. A few dollars less in parts is a sizable increase in profit margin for the lower end machines.

For me, things are quite different: when I'm working as a writer/editor I spend a lot of time with two documents side-by-side on my screen -- when I got a 16:9 screen in my home office to replace a 4:3 screen, it was as if a new world opened up.

Look back up, I wasn't advocating going back to 4:3. I was advocating for 3:2 like the Google Pixel 2560x1700. You can display two docs no problem side by side on 3:2 and in fact it is better than on 16:9.

Here is two facing pages of a typical PDF on my 16:10 and clearly even 16:10 is wider than optimal for two facing pages. The wasted space is still on the sides. 16:9 would be even less optimal than 16:10.

It's a reasonable enough price. I bought the missus a 15.5" Vaio a little over 2 years ago, and did the screen rez bump. $810 got a system with an i3-370M, an Ati HD 5650 driving a 19x10 screen and 4GB of RAM.

She didn't need anything too fancy and didn't need particularly great battery life, so it fit the bill perfectly.

So if Sony can offer a usable 650$ Laptop with a decent screen how about Apple providing a 1000$ 15" Macbook that you can actually use? Apple's laptop prices are ridiculous. I am not saying you don't get value for your money but the entry prices for a usable ( i.e not 13" micro) notebook are simply laughable.

So long as 1366x768 is the norm, the Retina screens will command a hefty price premium.

The same is true of 4h battery life, metal design, HDD, etc.

Why would Apple hurt itself by underselling it's 15" MBP? I understand why cheaper is better, I just bought a 13" rMBP for $1200, but there literally isn't a comparable Windows laptop for cheaper.